Jump to content

Boagrius

Members
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Boagrius

  1. Yeah - I would have thought going down the F35A route would make a lot of sense from a capability standpoint. By the time it hits Block ~IV-V it will have really matured as an A2A platform, with 6 AMRAAMs internally or perhaps 4 x SACM + 4 x AMRAAM down the track (analogous to the 4 x 'winder + 4 x AMRAAM/Sparrow loadout on the Eagle). That said, I have no idea how costs would compare. I imagine the bean counters will have a big say in this one.
  2. AFAIK Tyler Rogoway floated that idea at one point, but it got in short order.
  3. The dilemma is that (AFAIK) Red Flag generally models "present day" scenarios. Right now the rival 5th gen jets in Russia and China are still in a fairly early stage of development, and the CONOPS for both platforms has yet to really mature in either of their airforces. What actual capabilities they will bring to the table is correspondingly not set in stone. I imagine this really complicates attempts to model them in an exercise where realistic representation/imitation of OPFOR threat systems is of paramount importance - you can't just throw an F22 into the Red team inventory and call it a PAK FA, or do the same with an F35 and call it a J31... at least not without first understanding what the PAK FA/J31 can actually do, and how they are typically employed. The reality is it will be some years yet before the 5th gen competitors to the F35 and F22 reach a state of developmental/operational maturity. By this time the F35s themselves will have matured as well, with all the bells and whistles that Block 4 (and beyond) will bring. Fair enough. With that said, the phrases "double inferior" and "can't turn, can't climb, can't run" have been catch cries for plenty of the anti-JSF voices out there over the years. The assertion being that F35s would get "clubbed like baby seals" even by 4th gen opponents. The Red Flag result at least goes some way to putting that notion to rest.
  4. Doubt that's representative of SDB though - fairly sure one of its main selling points is the ability to use it in close proximity to friendlies and/or civilians. Ditto for APKWS.
  5. lol. Well if Erdogan ends up with a fleet of them that might not be such a bad idea ;)
  6. Sounds like a rumour to me. My understanding is that one of the focuses of the global program is to avoid various fleets from falling too far out of lock-step with one another (as has happened to the global fleet of Falcons and Hornets, for example). How successful that will be, I don't know.
  7. Pretty sure it was agreed early on that everyone will be getting the same jets.
  8. It's about as unequivocal as you can reasonably expect from a such a forum... Other posters have addressed most of the other issues I would otherwise raise BUT: - The 7 losses in WVR are no more or less relevant than the 145 victories. - To simply assume that none of the F35's kills occurred within WVR would be rather silly IMHO. - If so much as ~1/5 of those victories occurred WVR (we don't know) that's still a ~4:1 kill ratio(!?) - Very premature to dismiss the jet as a poor WVR performer when (as Sweep said) they were only lugging a pair of slammers each, with no gun while using constrained CLAW. PR stunt? Maybe. It's still good news for the F35 whichever way you cut it.
  9. Some rather unequivocal testimony here: Bearing in mind that this was achieved with Block 3i software constraining payload to 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x GBU, I'd say this is pretty good news for the F35(!).
  10. Not to mention the fact that it's still using what? Block 3i software? Fast forward to block 4 + expanded AAM carriage, (with further time for crews to master the platform/CONOPS) and I imagine the results would be even more positive.
  11. I agree although I think you'll find there is a growing body of people in the operational community (not LM) who have a pretty sound understanding of what the jet can do, and their message has been quite clear for some time. The issue with a post like Snarf's is that it is reflective of the myriad of voices out there that lack the exposure, expertise or intellectual honesty to communicate reliable information about the F35 program (ref the "bet" between mvsgas and I earlier). The divide in perception between those voices and that of the people who actually "know" seems to be quite vast. Actually as Garrya, Sweep and GG have quite accurately highlighted, low observability (stealth) and electronic warfare (eg ECM) are actually inextricably linked concepts/features. In layman's terms, the RCS of a given aircraft has a vitally important impact on how easy it is to conceal/protect with jamming. A VLO aircraft like the F35 is MUCH easier to protect than one that lacks the same level of signature management. Combine this with the fact that not all ECM is, in fact, immediately detectable (esp when VLO means you don't need to be pumping out huge amounts of RF energy to achieve a given outcome) and you have a situation in which the F35's VLO properties work hand in hand with onboard/allied EW assets to provide a whole other layer of protection that would be extraordinarily difficult to replicate in anything other than another 5th gen aircraft.
  12. Ok you're on - I'm betting Foxtrot Alpha and War is Boring :lol: EDIT: Would love to add Aviation Week, SNAFU Blog or POGO but you only picked two so it's unfair if I get more choices!
  13. It would appear you have been misinformed ;)
  14. Simply responding to this: Which is very different to: You're just shifting the goalposts now, which is a shame. Again, there are an infinite number of things that are a "possibility" (the fielding of military unicorns, the adoption of Klingon defence shields, the outbreak of world peace and dismantling of all militaries globally) but they're not remotely as relevant as what is likely in a specified theatre and timeframe. As I said, the conversation about new propulsion tech strikes me as much more interesting. I'm out! ;)
  15. PW is sitting up and taking note as well - we seem to have some competition on our hands after all: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-pratt-whitney-proposes-block-1-engin-427150/
  16. Yes and infantrymen tend to carry combat knives with them - it doesn't mean anyone is preparing for bullets to stop working any time soon!? Integrated guns have a variety of uses aside from BFM air combat, at relatively little cost - cheap, , gunning down the occasional opponent that has spent all their energy defending BVR/pre merge missiles, finishing off damaged aircraft, dispensing of lower value/capability targets (eg UAVs) and so on. They are not built in because anyone of note is seriously entertaining the idea that BFM gunfights will be a particularly important aspect of the air to air warfare domain going forward. You'll also note that the overwhelming trend in new design fighter aircraft is to carry a token amount of gun ammunition - totally inadequate for providing any kind of persistence in the air warfare domain and fundamentally NOT indicative of force planners anticipating a scenario where AAMs are rendered so impotent. Sure, but that "preparation" does not mean defaulting to gun based BFM combat of all things. In reality it's more likely to (for example) trigger a shift to multimodal forms of missile guidance (eg. the Israeli Stunner missile), DIRCM hardening and/or shifts to broader/multispectral IR seekerheads (ref what the Russians have done with Verba) and more emphasis placed on co-operative engagement techniques via data sharing over jam resistant datalinks like MADL. For the umpteenth time, you've provided precisely zero evidence to suggest that this is a likely scenario worth seriously planning for in any theatre or any timeframe whatsoever. If it's all the same to you, the conversation about future propulsion systems seems much more interesting.
  17. I think you're referring to the F136 here and yes it did get canned. We're talking about the work they've been doing under the ADVENT and AETD programs. Very good possibility that it could yield an alternate (and superior) propulsion system to the F135 in ~10 years time.
  18. It's a good question, although I don't have an answer. That said the single source engine dynamic might not last forever - last year GE were making some serious noise with their work on variable bypass propulsion systems: http://aviationweek.com/defense/ge-details-sixth-generation-adaptive-fighter-engine-plan I'd say there is a decent chance that F35's could be re-engined in the post 2025 timeframe if this new technology turns out to be as good as it sounds.
  19. Nah katanas might snap - better stick with bare fists! :P
  20. Duly noted. Again, meaningless to the rest of us without evidence indicating how and when this is likely to occur though (if ever). In the next 10-15 years!? Again, evidence please. Militaries around the world are still investing well into the future with large stockpiles of guided air to air and surface to air missiles - doesn't really fit with your narrative does it... Meteor, AIM120D, Verba, R37, Python, Astra, R77M, SACM, MSDM, K74M2, PL15, CAMM/CAMM-ER, AAM4B/5, S400/500, upgraded Patriot, MEADS, Buk M3, NASAMs/AMRAAM-ER, Pantsir, Sosna, SM6, HQ9, ESSM Blk II, Aster... the list goes on and on (and on). They're all slated to be around and heavily invested in for quite some time to come (cref decades) for use against tactical fighters with comparatively little investment in alternative (eg. "dumb) weapon systems... Hell they're even going as far as to put guidance systems on the dumb weapons!! None of this provides any tangible indication whatsoever that guided missiles are approaching obsolescence against tactical fighter aircraft in the foreseeable future or that this is a belief held by any force planners of note.
  21. Yes DIRCM systems are nothing new as a technology, but it will be a long time before they could be considered commonplace among the F35's potential opponents (PAK FA is the only one to have it "off the shelf" AFAIK) and longer still before they could render something like AIM9X or SACM obsolete. PAK FA, for example, is still FAR from being the mainstay of the VVS (if ever), with the Russians likely to be relying heavily on DIRCM-less Flanker and Fulcrum derivatives for quite some time to come. The PLAAF are no further along in this arena. I'd add that there is a big difference between today's practice of fitting a DIRCM system to a transport or strike aircraft, where the IR threat is overwhelmingly going to be coming from below (eg. for use against more primitive IR SAMs/MANPADs) and using one as a countermeasure against WVR missile launches from a violently maneuvering platform. For the latter you really need a high quality MAWS capable of directing the DIRCM beam onto the incoming AAM. As it stands, EODAS on the F35 is almost certainly the most capable known system for this task. True directed energy weapons are still even further down the track. To my knowledge the technology has yet to be miniaturized to the degree necessary for practical implementation on a tactical fighter. In the intervening period there are other emerging technologies that could also have transformational effects. For example, the use of networked (perhaps supercruising) UCAVs as weapons delivery platforms via a manned "mothership" (F35) springs to mind. None of this makes widespread BFM gunfights a likely event in the next 30 odd years though...(!?)
  22. I'll try to keep this simple: - It's meaningless in the sense that without context the conversation revolves around vague generalities rather than anything with real world implications. Saying that there "could" be a time when countermeasures overtake AAMs in a systematic way says nothing of how likely it is to transpire, or when. Force planners don't get the luxury of making procurement decisions based on what "might potentially happen eventually", they have to make some sort of judgement about what is probable in a given timeframe. - If we (for argument's sake) reach the point where Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) render AAM's obsolete during the F35's lifetime then kinematics will almost certainly be FAR less relevant than ever before. I'd argue that the F35's "first look, first kill" design philosophy - where information dominance takes precedence over all else - would be substantially more useful than that of any 4.5 gen aircraft in existence since the OODA loop would be dramatically compressed, and evading "fire" via maneuvering would be nigh on impossible.
  23. This hypothetical is so oversimplified and devoid of evidence as to be nigh on meaningless. What leads you to think "ECM" might get to this point? What guidance methods do you think would be afffected? Why? Why do you think that this would see combat aircraft default to tail chase gunfights "like in Vietnam"? I might as well say "but what if OPFOR develop shield devices that deflect all incoming bullets". The reality is that Vietnam was the very first showcase of AAMs on a large scale, the technology has changed fundamentally many times over since then.
  24. I am aware of this, however you have to wonder how effectively the T50 will be able to cue its DIRCM system (101KS-O) based on the limitations of its MAWS (101KS-U). Last time I checked the T50 used a UV based MAWS which (again, to my knowledge) does well to detect the ignition of nearby rocket motors but poorly/not when it comes to physically tracking an incoming missile in flight. The fact that EODAS is an IR based system leaves it better placed as a means of giving future DIRCM systems (~Blk 5?) accurate data about where to direct their energy (from a violently maneuvering platform no less!) when needed. It's likely to be decades before the two jets could plausibly meet each other in the sky in meaningful numbers. In that timeframe you could well be looking at F35D/E/F's running new ADVENT/AETD engines, DIRCM of their own/DEWs, SACM, MSDM, T3, GaN upgraded APG81, improved RAM coatings, networked UAV swarms... the list goes on. I agree it's extremely difficult to predict what the operating environment will be like post ~2030, but the idea that all the "fancy gadgets" will somehow just perfectly cancel each other out and reduce everyone to Korean War style tail chase gunfights strikes me as a gross oversimplification of what is likely to be a very complex situation with a multitude of (more) plausible outcomes.
  25. Of course, but that knife cuts both ways now doesn't it? :smilewink:
×
×
  • Create New...